Habits of the Heart III: The Obligations of Professionals in Local Government (Summer Reading)
<br><br>
The participation of professionals in local government has become
problematic, according to the authors of <b><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=XsUojihVZQcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ha…; target="”_blank”">Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life</a></b>.
Professional standards used to be ethics-oriented, but they have
become predominately technical. "Being good becomes a matter of
being good <i>at things</i>.” The problems professionals seek to solve are
predominately strategic and technical problems.<br>
<br>
A calling used to be “an occupation defined essentially in terms of
its contribution to the common good." Now it is what we feel we were
meant to do, what makes us happy, what brings us the sort of salary
and respect and personal satisfaction we want. A calling in
government, therefore, is seen not as devotion to the common good,
but as a career choice: a career politician, a career
administrator, a career comptroller. Or a stepping stone to a more
lucrative career, a way to make contacts and do favors so that you
can get a better job and higher salary (or more and bigger clients)
than you had before entering government.<br>
<br>
If you're a lawyer or realtor, you can even have it both ways. You
can serve your community and you can increase your business at the
same time. But to do so, you create conflicts. Not only the sort of
conflicts dealt with in ethics codes, but other conflicts that cause
the same sort of appearance problems that undermine the public trust
in government.<br>
<br>
For instance, two lawyers with prominent positions in my town's
government once represented contending developers in a matter
involving two contiguous shopping centers. The developers wanted to
sway the public (my town has a town meeting), so they sent out fliers to
everyone in town. Anonymous fliers. When the anonymity of the fliers
was pointed out to the lawyers at a public meeting, they acted not
like the public (who disliked this) or like public officials, who
would be required to either support the public sentiment or explain
why this sentiment was wrong, but rather as advocates for their
clients. One even defended his client by saying that at least his
client put a phone number on his flier, as if thousands of people
would call it to discover who was behind the flier.<br>
<br>
Rather than letting their clients know in advance that, in dealing
with their community, the clients would have to trade the lawyers'
prominence in the community for abiding by the lawyers' judgment
about what was appropriate (e..g, no anonymous fliers), the lawyers put their clients' interests ahead of the
public interest. What came first was their need to earn a living,
even if that living was based in part on business they obtained due
to their public service.<br>
<br>
However, few government officials are capable of acknowledging that they
put themselves first. They think in terms of what they deserve in
return for the sacrifices they have made, for all they have done for
their community. And they do something that is even more damaging: they "pretend they
live in a kind of community that no longer exists,” that is, a town
where the pillars of the community act out of noblesse oblige rather
than personal interest, and where everything is discussed openly and
honestly. Not only do they believe in this kind of community, but
this belief is at the center of everything they say about their
community, the vision they seek to get their neighbors to embrace.
Even if it is false, and they contribute to what makes it false.<br>
<br>
Except in very small towns, we cannot attain the spirit and practice of the
New England town of earlier centuries, which is still our ideal
(especially here in New England). Nor do most of us want to return
to the homogeneity or religious strictness that held these
communities together. The modern alternative most frequently pushed
by those in government — running government like a business — is
also undesirable, because the values of a business, and the
obligations of its leaders, are very different from those in
government.<br>
<br>
The average citizen does not have an obligation to get involved in
local government, although their participation is desirable to bring
community and government together. But professionals, especially
lawyers, do have an obligation to participate in their local
government, especially when there is corruption that most people
cannot understand. And if they are involved in government, they have
to act as if they have two clients, clearing anything they do with
both of them. If they are in a high position in government, they
should let every client know that the government comes first. This
will not lose them too many clients, because such a limitation is
offset by their authority in the community. And, hopefully, for every client that would abandon them for this, other clients would gain increased respect for them.<br>
<br>
See the other posts on this book:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/habits-heart-i-citizen-participation-…; target="”_blank”">Citizen Participation and the Public Trust</a><br>
<a href="<a" href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/habits-heart-ii-civic-membership-and-…; target="”_blank”">Civic Membership and the Common Good</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
203-859-1959